]]>By: Eli Rabetthttp://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/#comment-419997
Sun, 19 May 2013 22:53:06 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=17946#comment-419997WTF is a Progress Review? Seriously, you mean a Review Article. No way it qualifies as a Review Article. see above
]]>By: MikeNhttp://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/#comment-419862
Sat, 18 May 2013 19:12:55 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=17946#comment-419862“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he said.”

A Mr Cook.

]]>By: kimhttp://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/#comment-419849
Sat, 18 May 2013 17:16:05 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=17946#comment-419849Even if I have to redefine ‘peer review’ as taking a good hard optical grade look at it.
==================
]]>By: Jeff Normanhttp://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/#comment-419679
Fri, 17 May 2013 12:17:00 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=17946#comment-419679But Don, that would validate all the others who had previously been kept out of the mainstrean journals by redefining peer review, you know, people published in E&E etc.
]]>By: Don Monforthttp://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/#comment-419605
Thu, 16 May 2013 15:22:25 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=17946#comment-419605“That is, if an expert reviewer said… wait a minute.. this thing is not ready for prime time… I suggest another path..”

Well, you could take your paper to one of those fly-by-night-pay-for-play journals and get your box checked. There is more than one way to make a mockery of the peer review system.

]]>By: Skiphilhttp://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/#comment-419595
Thu, 16 May 2013 13:51:50 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=17946#comment-419595For one aspect of the sordid tales at thread I linked above, Nature editors kept changing their own rules and criteria on the fly, with the clear effect of keeping critical comment out of “the record” —

…This seems to tie back to earlier actions by Nature. We submitted our revision on March 21, 2004 and a few days later were told to shorten the submission to 800 words. In the final decision, we were told that the decision was rendered on the basis of an allowance of 500 words ( a limit much lower than contemporary comments on Emanuel (2005) for example) as follows….

Yup, at will, for good reasons or for bad reasons… Everyone who has followed some of these climate sagas is well aware of how editorial discretion has been used (and abused) to control “the message” — editors also get to alter, tighten, and/or make up new rules as they go along, especially when it comes to climate-gate-keeping in journals such as Nature, Science, PNAS, etc. For example,

“6. The bottom line objection here appears to be that some, not Eli to be sure, do not believe that this paper should have been published at this time because that means that it can be considered by the IPCC for their next report. Tant Pis”

Let’s speculate. Suppose it was the reviewers who thought that the paper should not be published as an article, but rather as a Progress review. In short, suppose the reviewers thought it didnt pass muster an an article, but thought it was “good enough” for a progress article..